everyone gets to benefit from the great place that san francisco is and that we are building pathways for folks to be able to stay here and that they feel like they will belong. >> just do it. sign up for it. [♪] >> this is thes transportation committee for monday, april 13th. i'm the chair of the meeting.

our clerk is miss erica major from before miss major gives any announcements, i want to thank all of the staff from the clerk of the board who are bringing this virtual meeting to everybody who is participating and watching. thank you to john c. and author thorougarthurcoo. >> the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are close. however, members will be participating remotely as if they were present. public comment will be available for each item on the agenda. channel 26 and sf gov tv are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak.

comments are opportunities to speak via phone by calling (888)204-5984. the access code is 351-1558 and then press pound. you will be lined up in the system in the order you died, 1 and 0. while you're waiting, the system will be silent. >> thank you, madam clerk. could you please call the first item. >> sure. item number one is a resolution renaming the 200 block of stewart street to stewart lane to honour william m. executer. stewart. members should call in and present 1 and the number provided. >> thank you, miss major.

this item was brought to us by supervisor haney and his staff. anabigail, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin. good afternoon. thank you for considering this item. the designation of this 200 block of stewart to lane serves several purposes as residential use. the new residential building is replacing a seven-story garage whose entrance was at 75 howard and only address will be impacted as there are no other buildings on this block. this compliments the bike lane on howard, and drop-offs will occur. there are other examples of town

that -- >> sorry. >> there are several letters of support in the packet from the neighbors including the stewart street hospitality association. this went through the port process under jurisdiction and it passed unanimously at the port on december 10th of 2019. if you have further questions about this item, we are also joined today by justin zucker for any technical land use questions and thank you so much for your time this afternoon. >> my connection timed out and i'm back. >> supervisor, i just ended my remarks. if there are any questions, we have others from justin zucker

and miss rose to any technical land-use questions, as well as kristine mann. we're supported today by public works and jeremy spitz is on standby. >> thank you, abigail. i will note for the record with received a letter of support from the nearby boulevard restaurant which i forwarded to clerk major which will be a part of the record. are there any comments or questions from supervisor safaye or peskin? >> not at this time? >> public comment, any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? >> mr. chair, staff is checking to see if there are any calls in cue. >> there's one question. >> hello, caller, you have two

minutes. please begin now. >> this is peter dislow. the generai'm a member of the eo street. we in support of the remaining of stewart street where an association of members and harbour court, hotel griffin and ozomu restaurants and we have no problem with the renaming of that portion. stewart street would like to also add the cooperation of the developers of the project to this date and the distance concerns of everyone in the area, so we're in support of the renaming of that portion of the street. >> thank you for your comments. are there any other members of

the public who would like to comment? we have zero questions remaining and we'll close comment, and if there's no objection, there's a motion to forward this to the full board with positive recommendation and on that motion, a role call, please. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> preston aye. supervisor safaye. >> aye. >> supervisor pekin. >> aye. >> you have three ay session. >> could you please call the next item? >> yes, item number two is an ordinance amending the planning code to modify the district regarding minimum parking requirements for ceiling height and to allow payment of the inclusionary housing fee and assert finds.

members should call the number provided on the screen and press one and zero to line up. >> thank you, madam clerk and this item was reviewed by the planning commission back in january and was originally scheduled for a hearing in front of this committee earlier, but, obviously, it was delayed and needed to be renoticed. this was brought to us by supervisor stephanie and supervisor stephanie, the floor is yours. >> thank you for your scheduling this item. this is a special use district that would create 100 new homes in district 2. i'm doing everything i can to make sure my district does its fair share to provide homes for families and working people. i think a lot of people do understand the background of this special-use district and this project. when the project sponsor approached me and asked me to

make a change to the original use district and allowed them to say i was less than thrilled is an understatement. i say that because the value of having inclusionary housing on item is important to all of us. this was agreed to under the initial sud and shown with the original conversation, there was ncondition, there was nopath wi. so as it stands right now, the lucky penny or the copper penny project will not be built if i don't make this change. so i want to be clear that the process that brought this project here was not typical. in general, we should be following our city-wide inclusionary zoning rules when increasing density. however, the site as a special set of circumstances that make it different. the underlying zone itself was a planning mistake.

as initially zoned, the height limit would be 80 feet but 21 units allowed. the sud allowed for 100 units of housing, bringing the density in line. this is transit rich and has easy access to the 38 garry bus where our city is investing over $3 million. the project sponsor has also committed to using union labor for the project, ensuring that we will be creating jobs with fair wages and benefits and we all know now we need that more than ever. a long and thorough community process brought the surrounding neighborhoods together in support of this project and i have heard concerns that the funds raised through this special use district will not be used to build housing in the immediate vicinity and i'm working to find locations for projects that are 100%

affordable in my district and this would be a welcome addition to making sure that we create housing for people of all income levels in district two. so i wanted to let the committee know that i am working with supervisor fewer to write legislation to hold that 4.$5 million fee while we try to identify a site. i want to thank supervisor fewer and her staff. i would ask that you move this legislation forward to the full board with a positive recommendation as the committee report and, of course, remain available for questions and thank you again, chair peskin for scheduling this item today. >> colleagues, if we don't have questions for supervisor stephanie, i would like to ask miss veronica florez from the department of city planning to make a presentation a.

i think this went before the planning commission on january 23rd and recommended unanimously to the board of supervisors with one modification that supervisor stephanie has just addressed that, would be the subject of trailing legislation. with that said, miss florez, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin. >> thank you. you have shared my presentation, but to reiterate, this relates to the proposed change to the garry masonic district and chill alinwillallow a housing fee. this was heard by the planning commission and the planning commission recommended approval to earmark the impact fees to district 2. supervisor stephanie was amenable to the changes and

would look into this further and she's also working with the neighboring districts to identify potential sites. this concludes the staff presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, miss florez. are there any questions for veronica? >> just for the record, this particular change is specific just to this project, correct? this does not set precedent. i just wanted that on the correct. >> yes, correct. this is specific to this project. >> thank you. i just wanted to hear the planning department say that for the record and i know you know, and i know, as well, but i wanted to hear it from the planning department. >> veronica florez, that the proposed amendment regarding the option for an includingary

housing fee is specifiinclusion. >> done through the special-use district project, correct. >> yes, this would be to the living planning code, which we would review the planning projects against. >> ok, thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you, chair. >> chair, i have a couple of questions, if i may. >> supervisor preston. >> thank you. >> i'm trying to understand the history here and just my understanding is that the original rezoning or the creation of the special use district was premised on the purpose of that as stated in the ordinance, was to provide mixed-use development, with a combination of income levels at this site.

so i'm a bit concerned with a proposal that essentially removes the affordable housing from this site. i am right in my understanding that the special use district that quadrupled this was to allow mixed income on site there? >> so the original sud revised the zoning to allow much more housing on this site. i believe it's 65 or 67 units. so as supervisor stephanie mentioned, the special-use district increased that number dramatically. and part of the original sud was to include a different set of market rates and inclusionary housing requirements. however, during the planning commission hearing after listening to the project

sponsor, supervisor stephanie's presentation and comments from the general public, the planning commission did support the proposed ordinance with the caveat for the recommended modification regarding the collected fees to be designated towards district 2 or the surrounding vicinities. >> just for a follow-up question. looking act other sites of comparable sides here, we have others that lift the restrictions but the developers there agreed there may issues but they have agreed to all all of the inclusionary on site and i'm wondering if you could comment on other compraably

sized projects. >> i can speak to two very particular projects. there's one by the same developer and that was in home sf program and they are providing 25% on-site units and that is for on-item, as well. and i'v i'm still working on anr housing development project with around 1167 units and this is located next door, both of which are in supervisor safyay's district and they're voluntarily providing the units on site. so these are just two projects

of comparable or larger size that i worked on recently. (inaudible). >> the former lucky penny restaurant has been vacant under underutilized for a number of years and that's one reason why supervisor stephanie said we're trying to bring housing in and activate the site and this is one of the ways we would bring momentum back to the project. >> thank you.

my microphone was muted. my apologies. the one point was going to make is that the entire inclusionary housing regimen incentivized on-site inclusionary, which is why the percentage for on-site is 23% as compared to the in lieu, which is 33%. so there is a disincentive financially to go off-site and that is captured here. >> the off-site was not an option and frankly, in looking

through, at least on paper here, not seeing what makes this site any different to any of the other places where we either insisted on or have voluntarily obtained on site affordable housing at a time when we desperately need that, but that's more of a comment than a question. >> thank you, supervisor. shall we go to public comment? i believe cyrus, the project sponsor, is on the line but there may be others, as well. >> they are checking to see if there are any callers in cue. mr. chair, no callers wishing

to speak. >> so with that, public comment is closed. >> mr. chair, we have veronica, who would like to speak. >> miss florez. >> thank you, chair peskin. just one more comment i would like to add in response to supervisor preston's inquiry. after the special use district was set in place and after the recent years, the project sponsor came back to the planning department and to supervisor stephanie sharing that the cost estimates came in, about $10 million, above the original estimate. this is largely due to the voluntary measures to higher union labor. so this is based on information from the project sponsor. this is the primary reason why providing on-site affordable housinaffordablehousing and whyd

to make the option for an inclusionary housing pee. fee. >> just a quick follow-up on that, because i want to be careful here, because i think often, the cost of these are unfair of labor and i want to make sure that's not the case here. the ocean avenue site you mentioned, my understanding is that is able to do the 25% on-site and that is fully labor committed site, as well. so i'm not sure -- again, i upset the cost o the developer faces and i commend them on commitment but i think to use union labor here, but i'm still looking for why this is

different, again, than something like ocean where the 25% affordable is done on site but can't be done here. >> chair peskin, can i speak on that since it's in my district. >> sure. >> supervisor preston through the chair, the reason the 65 ocean still pencils and we hope it continues to pencil is because it's in one of the economic empowerment zones that the federal government created. we were able to get that project fully entitled prior to the end of 2019, when the tax ability for investors -- essentially, it offsets certain tax liabilities and that is not an option at the lucky penny site and so, the reasons that our project continues to pencil because of that. they are also doing 100% union labor on the ocean avenue

project and have committed to that, but it's a significant difference in terms of the amount of capital and the amount of off--se offset for the cost e project and changes the return for investment for those that are in investing in the overall project. so i think that's probably the most significant between the two. you have the project sponsor on the phone that's doing both projects and he could speak about that, as well. >> thank you, supervisor safaye for that piece of information. cyrus, if you would like to just clarify for the committee and madam clerk, if you can magically patch cyrus in.

>> good afternoon, and thank you so much for your time this afternoon and i hope you can hear me. >> yes, we can. >> i'd like to thank supervisor stephanie and her entire staff and the land use committee for hearing our project today. this process has been ongoing at the laurels since 2014 and i think time is a key element here that has been touched upon but not exclusively. it started off as a project and a parcel that permitted 21 housing units. so the density limit on site only allowed 21 units within the existing mass restrictions that are still in place and have not been changed.

from the extent of community outreach process over the years, over six years at this point, we were able to establish a coalition of support from the immediate neighbors, some of whom are loudly in opposition to another project that's nearby. but we're able to create a large consensus of neighbors that delivering housing within the site's current constraints made sense and were able to add housing without any of the underlying zoning constraints. and so that conversation had started well before the discussion of home sf, which when we were about a month or two prior to heading into our original planning commission on the issue, was announced and at

that time, we approached the neighborneighbors and sought toe home sf. but there was a significant amount of opposition and we were faced with a lawsuit that would never allow the lawsuit to move forward or working within the constraints of removing the density limits and so that's the reason why we could not pursue home sf at the laurel. the significance expect difference between the laurel and the ocean project is that we've been pursuing our approvals and trying to break ground for six years now at the

laurel. and through that time frame, we've experienced a pretty significant escalation in construction pricing. the building is a type one project, concrete construction is substantially more expensive than wood-frame construction than 65 ocean. 65 ocean, begin that we were able to pursue and with the support of supervisor safaye, we were able to pursue the approval in a much more timely manner which continues to be prioritized as a project through now the plan check and building process, as well. by way of comparison, we submitted a comprehensive building permit for the lucky pepnpenny site that we would brk

ground. april 15th was our scheduled date and we were informed that the building departments only picked up the permits for review. so the projects really are very different in nature and, unfortunately, there's a lot of variables at play with regards to the conditions at the lucky penny that have necessitated that change in this off sighting. we are committed to deliver housing and committed to deliver affordable housing on site. and we have tried to demonstrate that across all of the projects in the city, but this is a matter for the laurel of feasibility whether or not we get any housing and this is different than the ocean project. >> thank you for the comments, cyrus. just out of an abundance of caution, i would like to reopen this up to public comment.

if there are any members who would like to comment on item number 2, please do so now. >> checking to see if there are any callers in cue. >> thank you, miss major. >> mr. chair, m no callers wishing to speak. >> we'll close -- mr. chair, i just wanted to say forked recore record, the san francisco building trade called me and let us know that they were 100% in support of this project. >> i received a similar call, as well. >> supervisor preston? >> yes, i don't know if this is

better directed through the chair to the developer or supervisor stephanie. i'm curious if there's been any consideration of how this pencils out if it's not all or not. seems like the claim is being made that it cannot be developed as originally proposed with on-site, but then we have before us an amendment that would allow them to do zero on-site and do everything in lieu. has there been any consideration of something all or not requiring two-thirds, half, some portion of this affordable housing to be on site and the rest feed out? >> cyrus, would you like to take a shot at that? >> please give me a second, please. >> sure.

>> i apologize, there's a little bit of a lag. i'm assuming it's our phone call, but supervisor, preston, we've extensively looked at a number of achieve the returns that would make this project feasible to move forward. we've been as aggressive as we can be with regards to our revenue assumptions and trying to cut as much as we can on the cost side to hit those threshholds and the proposal in front of you came about after numerous iterations and back and forth with supervisor stephanie's office and the entire team at the planning department, as well. so, unfortunately, i don't like

to characterize this as an all-or-nothing, but we have exhausted over the last two and a half years now, since the original approvals, all of the different ands. avenues. frankly, the gap we needed to bridge if feasibility came down to cost and just between when we received the planning commission approval and when the site permit was ready for issuance originally, we saw this escalation which really resulted in the only choice which was to either abandon to bridge that gap which is 1.a millio 1.$5 mio come back and do this and now the gap has grown even further.

our original is three years old. >> supervisor preston? >> my apologies. i think i shared it earlier in my initial opening comments that the building permit process itself was also further exacerbating the issue and we're hoping with the current economic condition, at the very least, we won't experience further escalation. we're anticipatin(inaudible). >> supervisor preston. >> an additional comment but not a question. >> so thank you, cyrus, for those additional responses and supervisor preston, your comments, please. >> thank you, chair peskin.

so i remain troubled by this and also concerned with the potential precedent with respect to other developments not far away over on divizadaro that are in the pipeline and one is a little smaller than this and one a lig bigger than that, trying to hold developers to their promises, do on-site. i have to say that like just looking back at how we got here, we had an increase from 21 units under the original zoning to more like 100, which was a huge upzoning and it allowed a lot more units and one would assume a lot more profits and a lot more room to absorb some costs. so i don't understand how that property, after that upzoning, with your valuable upzoning and

i should say that that original special-use district in the upzoning, the only additional affordable added was 5% additional affordle and it was targeting folks at 140% ami, so, basically, six-figure earners. nothing wrong with that range, but, basically, a large increase in the development potential on that site with very little additional required. one of the things required was that the housing be on site and that's why it was upzoned. i want to read just a sentence from the original special-use district legislation which was for this project. the purpose of the legislation and i quote, in order to provide for a mixed-use development project with ground-floor retail and a combination of very low income, low income, moderate

income, middle income and market rate residential units at densities hire than what would be permitted in the density district in an area well-served by transit, there shall be a masonic district and so on. this is the fundamental premise on which the number of units was upzoned to allow gra qua quadrue number of units. i think this opens the door to other developers, potentially making the same decision to see out, when as chair peskin correctly notes, as a policy matter, we try to incentivize folks to build their affordable housing units on site. this is not just a general issue of strong preference for inclusion on site, but it's two

blocks from district five. so i appreciate the outreach to supervisor fewer and the plans around trailing legislation and let me just say two blocks from district five and it is a big loss, not that we don't have afforabilitaffordable units. we want it to go forward. as much as some loved the lucky penny, spent many late nights in that establishment, we lost the lucky penny and i think we would all like to get housing on that site. but as it stands, i am disappointed this goes from all-affordable to zero, to the affordable being on-site. i don't think that's ki consistt with the original use district and it's not something i can support. and i should clarify, there are

three parts of the amendment proposed. supervisor stephanie, i have no problem with the parking and ground-floor. (affordable). >> so are you saying that you would like to sever out the subsection of ge at the bottom of page 3, i believe it is. i don't have it. i can turn the other screen on. and we can vote for those two items or alternatively, if this goes to the full board, you could sever it out at the full board. >> right. i could do it by motion. i don't know the reference of the sponsor to potentially

treating that differently and moving the other two pieces of the boaofthe board. >> is there an opportunity for me to make any additional remarks? >> of course. supervisor stephanie, go ahead. >> i would like to follow up on some of the comments made by supervisor preston. and first of all, the premise of what we were doing, what we started to do back in 2004 was housing. in your remarks you say one would assume that they would be able to build it. i don't have the luxury of assuming things when i am drafting legislation and when i am working with developers to actually provide housing in my district. so in drafting this legislation, there were no just assumptions being made. there was actually sitting down, going through the financials and realizing that there was nothing

more left for this developer to give that we were on the bubble. and i just want to say, too, that this started in 2014. i was a legislative aid to supervisor farrell for two years and then i came back and i still have an empty vacant lot because i can't get this housing built. so when they came to me and said we need a change in the sud, as i stated in opening remarks, i was less than thrilled. so i didn't assume what they were telling me. we sat down, looked at the financials and realized this property is different and this property is unique and is something when i went to the planning commission in january, the planning commission agreed unanimously with that premise. the fact that this site was zoned for 21 units and eight stories was absolutely reamed.

iridiculous. i also want to say that this is district 5, that this borders district 5 and i first heard from you today about ten minutes before this meeting. so i'm opening to having conversations with you about legislation that you're concerned of. all i can say is that in this regard, i do not think the perfect should be the enemy of the good. we need housing in district 2. i am committed to building affordable housing as you've seen at 3333 with 100% affordable housing for seniors and i ask that you respect the fact i have been work on this legislation for over six years, both as an aid and a member of the community and now as supervisor. it is something i have not assumed. it is something i've worked hard it and something that the planning commission has unanimously agreed with me on

and like i said, i am not going to tolerate an empty lot without housing when in this housing crisis that we're in and what we're facing right now, the fact that it will provide jobs. we know that jobs are more necessary than ever. it is a piece of legislation i hope will stay intact and forwarded out to the full board will full recommendation. i ask for that today. thank you, chair peskin and supervisors. >> i want to weigh in a little bit and however, supervisor preston wants to proceed relative to how we vote this either piece by piece or as a whole. i was around for the creation of the sud and i shared initially the concerns that supervisor preston has spoken to. but as supervisor stephanie

knows, we went to some lengths with folks from chuchu and others, to number one, really determine what has been represented to the developer is true and two, to differentiate this project and other potentially similar-situation projects that it's not upheld as precedent. i think that has happened and i want to be very clear that other similar situated developers are going to have to have pretty incredible stories to tell if they think this will be the normal course of business. so i wanted to put those things out there. supervisor peskin, however you would like to proceed. i intend to vote for subsection d. i think the first two issues set forth relative to parking

minimums and the 12-foot floor height on the ground floor are without controversy. so how would you like to proceed, supervisor preston? >> let me just start and clarify, supervisor stephanie. thank you for your work on this. our office reached out over a month ago, my staff to your staff, to indicate our concerns. we did not hear back anything of substance. we followed up again last week to indicate our ongoing concerns and, frankly, we have not been presented with anything that would distinguish this from alternative otheanyother projeci reached out personally right before the hearing, as you indicated. i do not believe that the issue before us is whether we are accomplishing density or not.

that ship has sailed. that was done with the special-use rezoning. the issue before us is simply whether the affordable housing needs to be provided on site or not. and i believe it should be. so chair peskin, i would like to move to amend the legislation to restore on page 3, line 20 to 22, restore the sentence that begins in order to allow. >> supervisor peskin, can i just make a comment before you do that? >> sure. >> i just want to add a little color to the conversation. i think that certainly under both circumstances, i would be in 100% agreement with the

theory of doing everything on site, and i think at all costs, when we're dealing with adding density, but i think that this project has gone through many different renditions and i think because some of state of the std goals, one, keeping a commitment to the union labor and to increasing density and then being given the choice and i think it's on site, we would be left with an empty parking lot. because i don't think this would be a financeable project. and so, i'm in agreement with you. my first reaction, and i think supervisor peskin said this, as well, is to say this is not the number one objective, but at the same time, if we create an opportunity to build housing,

build more dense housing and then also -- i think i her supervisor stephanie make a commitment to work with chair fewer and she's said she's happy to work with you, to finding a project within a particular radius or site within a particular radius of the project, spend the next couple of years looking for that, i think taking that and putting it towards affordabl affordable hos left with zero on this site and going back to the drawing board and not having any housing in a housing crisis. while i appreciate what you're saying, it's unique to this particular site. so i am in support of this going forward and look forward to seeing supervisor stephanie work with both you and supervisor fewer to find the site or even in her district within the area to build some affordable

housing. thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words. >> supervisor peskin, i can't hear you if you're speaking. are you muted? >> i apologize, thank you. so supervisor preston, i think you were in the middle of making a motion to restore the language from lines 20-22 and i assume in the same breath, would want to delete in your motion the language that starts on line 22 and goes to page 4 to line 6. is that correct. >> correct. >> ok. >> so that motion is made and i think has been sufficiently discussed on that motion. a role call, please. >> on motion as stated by supervisor peskin, preston.

>> aye. >> supervisor safaye? >> no. >> supervisor peskin. >> no. >> peskin, no, one aye and two nos with supervisor safaye and peskin on defense. >> so that motion fails and we have the item before us that is unamended and we have two choices, which is we can send that item to the full board as a committee report with or without recommendation. what is this committee's will. >> chair peskin, i would request that we move without recommendation and also would very much welcome the opportunity to talk with any of my colleagues, developer and others before the hearing on this as to whether play be may e

opportunities to expand on site, even if not to require all on site to make this, in my opinion, more positive for the community in the end. >> i certainly respect giving you that opportunity. so why don't we move this item without recommendation to the full board as a committee report and i will get you or the committee clerk will get you the contact information from the gentleman representing the developer, cyrus, and so, is that supervisor safaye? >> what i would say is -- and again, this is just respecting the process, the amount of time and energy put into this, i would say that the district supervisor has stated their request to have this as a positive recommendation to go to the full board and i think

there's opportunity between now and tomorrow and then a subsequent vote, requiring two votes, chair peskin? >> that is correct. >> so that gives ten days for the opportunity for a sit-down i would vote to -- this has no disrespect to supervisor preston, but just the fact that so much time, effort and energy has been put into this and i would say do it with a positive recommendation and give the two sides. that was my preference. >> committee report? what's the proposal? >> i think the request is for a committee report? >> that is correct. >> that would send it to the board tomorrow. >> and that would give the project sponsor -- i would like

to give them some time, namely the next 24 hours to have those conversations. supervisor, i would like to make a motion to send this item as is without recommendation to the full board as a committee report. >> ok. >> on that motion, madam clerk, a role call, please. >> on the motion to refer without recommendation as a committee report, supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor searc safaye.

>> aye. >> peskin. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> can you read 3, 4 and 5 together. >> to revise the central waterfront plant and industry element and the recreation and open-space element and transportation element. the urban design element and land use index to reflect the mixed use district. item number 4 is the planning code to establish the power station special use district and the appropriate finding. item number 5 is approving the development between the city and county of san francisco and california farrell company, llc, for the power station mixed-use district with various benefits including 30% of affordable housing and approximately 6.9 acres of publically

accessible park and open space. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call the number provided on the screen and then press 1 and then 0 to speak. >> thank you, miss major. and before i acknowledge supervisor walton, i just want to say a little bit about the history of this site, the old murant power plant site which the board of supervisors and then under the leadership of supervisor sophie maxwell was the source of a tremendous amount of pollution in the southeast corner of san francisco. there were years of struggle to have this plant closed that required any number of infrastructure improvements back in the days of the california independent system operator, the

cal-iso, and it was really a great day for san francisco, along with the help of the city attorney's office, then under and still under dennis herrero, the incredible work of teresa mueller, that closed that power plant and gave priority for the development that has long been in the making. i want to acknowledge the project sponsor for the, i think, really superlative outreach they have done with the community and the level of outreach and cooperation over a host of different topics, including the preservation of historic resources and having an appropriate mixed-use development is, as i said, really been done very well and very carefully and i would like to acknowledge the project sponsor for that and then, it is my pleasure to introduce the sponsor of these three pieces of

legislation, supervisor walton and the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, chair pe peskin and thank you to my colleagues. i am not going to be very long in my statements. but i do just want to say that these items, 3, 4 and 5 comprise planning approvals for the power station development project which represents one of the last outstanding puzzle pieces to connecting the neighborhoods at the southeast san francisco to its waterfront. the project of over two years of community engagement is stakeholder input. this will provide jobs, economic development, affordable housing and elements more critical to sustainability of our city given the current public health crisis. this project will also provide almost 800 below market-rate

units for a bmr level of over 30%, no less than two-thirds of these affordable units will be provided on site. i might add and emphasize that we fought to make sure that we have affordable housing on site within the first phrase of the build-out. this includes the robust work for a development program, a range of new recreational and open spaces and tens of millions of dollars for transportation improvements, all in the area which are features of this project. and also, items shaped by community input over the course of the planning process. the community was heavily involved in all coverageses which is why we are in a place in position to hear this before you today. in short, this will be transformative in nature with a destination caliber waterfront. and also before you today, a

companion is a lease agreement with support that has already been forwarded by the budget committee with a positive recommendation that will provide much-needed and additional open space in an area in a community where this level of open space has been looking for quite some time but that's another exciting piece of items 3, 4 and 5. i want to say that we are here today to talk about the fact that this is something the district office supports. we fought hard to make sure certain commitments were made and, of course, we'll see it through to the continuation to make sure that everything we have fought for comes into fruition. with that said, i will leave it to the committee and just say thank you for this time, for these three items. you will hear from me for 6 and 7, as well. >> on behalf of the office of the economic and workforce

development, we have john lao, who has a power-point presentation to make and we have josh witskky from city planning. mr. lao, the floor is yours. >> i'll go through a few house thanksgivinhousekeeping items ay to load the presentation which is not showing up now. so it takes a second to load.

do you see the presentation? >> we do. apologies. so as you noted, some of my colleagues from the city are online today, john fitzky and

john francis and the manager of our section at oewd. >> we'll ask for a motion to accept the sud, addresses the number of technical corrections that the city attorney discovered to help clean up at this time. so on to the presentation. you see the site today and thank you to both supervisors walton

and peskin for those introductions. i want to set a little bit of context from a planning perspective, too. and some of you may have seen this slide before. it's the framework at oewd established, the southern bayfront framework with an organizing strategy to help keep track of this suite of projects that the city has processed over the past couple of years and the waterfront, obviously, together, representing an incredible amounamount of space for jobs ad housing units and we tried to coordinate an approach that makes the public benefits commensurate and the district needs as a whole. and then moving to the context of this area of this central waterfront, when you see the proposed plan near pier 70, you

can see what a transformation al effect these two will have in the area and critically connecting these neighborhoods to a part of the waterfront which have never been open to public access. that's one of the more important points of the project. moving to the site itself, you can see that our sequence analysis actually analyzed items the project is proposing do on port listenland, as well. there was a proposed lease agreement, recommended bit port commission is few weeks ago and already reviewed and recommended by your colleagues on the budget committee whereby the project would improve 1.6 acres of shoreline, port known property. here is the proposal itself as a

land use diagram, you see a mixed-use project, residential and commercial, the hope is to develop a hotel, as well, on the unit 3 site, adaptively reuse the power block that supervisor peskin made reference to. here is that same land-use information as a masking state. and 2600 units of full build-out of office and/or life science development, as well. a few images of the shoreline here to is sho show you this. again, such and important feature of the design of the project and, really, a focal point of the documents that draw

people to this waterfront, not only to open it up for the first time public access, but to draw people to it and provide space for vitality and dynamic opportunities once there. this really has the potential to become the destination waterfront, perhaps regional in nature, and something we're very proud of. this isupervisor peskin made ree to the community engagement process and then you add up all of the office hours, the larger scale community, meeting, workshops and the larger social events on the site and that all adds up to hundreds of opportunities where community members involve themselves in this process.

so i'll get to you in a moment, the crux of the matter, which is the nature of the public benefit's package. just a quick note on the mediation. that's and important topic, too. i will summarize that the upshot which is this, that the site cannot be developed as is just described in items in front of you as it is signed off and finalized by the quality control board who is the lead agency for those in mediation efforts. much of the project is ongoing and much is complete. so it has been underway for some time and these agreements go back through a series of prior owners. when this developer stepped into that agreement, collaboration to them and pg & e, they've been

able to realize efficiencies in terms of a time-table in accelerating that clean-up and they expect to be able to have the site remediated even to prior schedules. all of that process and the documents associated with this is a public process, of course, and all of that information is available through the water board site. so, on to kind of the crux of the matter, a few different topics. the centerpiece for this project, of course, is the 30% below-market rate level that we were able to negotiate with this developer. so a full project that equals almost 800 affordable units on this site and again, without intervention of major public participation either in the form of funding or land or both.

so the housing plan requires both 30% level and then amis consistent with section 415 of the planning code. up to one-third of the requirement, the developer is allowed to meet that through fees and those fees will need to be spent within district 10. the on-site units are subject to the neighborhood reference program and that fee amount equals over $45 million. on transportation, several items that baked into the project from day one, the extension of this dog-patch line, the project providing lay-over facilities and a turn-around for that line. obviously a robust tdm plan and over $65 million in tsf fees going to a suite of important

projects in the district and more broadly, this is something we've worked on with the community a lot in addition to many other points, been able to support the potential for a water transit pilot project in the area, something that a lot of folks in the neighborhood are interested in, as well, including the ports. the force development, we've initiated a $1 million contribution from the project to help fund job and training, both on the construction side and end-user side and essentially we'll be creating a pipeline for and then putting those applicants to work and opportunities generated with the activities on site, both instructs and then with end-user site.

i mentioned the importance of the waterfront and the port-owned areas. to that one piece of the open-space framework, including recreational opportunities, as well as passive interaction and in terms of facilities, the developer is in the advanced conversations with the ymca to be the provider of an on-site recreational facility and that facility will be required of the developer through the agreement and the ymca at this point is intended to be the operator. similarlsimilarly on site for ac library, should they be interested in that. in terms of preservation, this is items that has moved through

because of and thanks to the deep engagement of members of the community and so the project that's before you will adaptively reuse the resources on site, notably the station a structure which remains of much conversation and this iconic symbol of the neighborhood that everyone in the waterfront know today. being a waterfront site, sea-level rise is of concern and we both are addressing that and from an engineering standpoint, through the project, as designed. then in the out-years, part of a community facility's district that we will be establishing in partnership with the sponsor, some dollars at which will be available to the city for

sea-level waterfront model. so we've been through already a number of commission, all of which receive positive recommendations unanimously at each one and the planning commission certified the approval adopted at the end of january. so the actions before you today are three ordinances that we are requesting for recommendation on ordinances that amend the general plan and a planning code. the planning code amendments would establish the special use district and that's the way the city implements the design for development document which was part of your package in a much lengthier design focus and, of course, an ordinance adopting the agreement itself, the contract between the city and california barrel. it ensures these public benefits

we've discussed are delivered. and i'll leave you with just a few renderings of the future project. the future of 22nd street and 23rd street, as well as reused station a in the future. so myself and my colleagues are available for questions. thank you, supervisors, for the time. >> thank you, mr. lao and i want to mention you were an aid to then supervisor sophie maxwell and so you have watched this for probably getting on to a decade and a half or 12 years, at least. so i wanted to note that you've seen it all the way through. with that, are there any questions or comments from members of the land-use committee?

seeing no questions from committee members, let's go to the planning department, mr. switsku. i. >> to presentation today but we're here to answer questions. >> thank you, josh. >> let's open this up for public comment and i believe the project sponsor, enrique landae may be on the line and madam clerk, let's open this up for public comment. >> i wanted tthis was noted to n

economic impact. (inaudible). >> thank you for that. we'll hear from mr. kahn. i want to go back to mr. lao, that are amendments to item number 4, the 2039 file. i am not, to my knowledge, in receipt of those. i don't know if my colleagues are, but that is new information for me. i just searched my emails during the power point presentation and i don't think anything, at least not from miss major. colleagues are you in receipt of that? or mr. lao, do you know how we received that, or miss major? >> this is john. i shared those with the clerk.

we can send those to you live. we can get that to you right here in a moment. >> ok, maybe if you can email that to the members of the committee and the committee clerk and madam, clerk, are you familiar with what mr. lau spoke to earlier? >> the technical amendment? >> yes. >> yes, i can share them if you give me a minute. would you like me to share them on the screen. >> yeah, i certainly would like to know what i'm voting for. >> one minute. [ laughter ] >> and while she's pulling that up, sorry supervisors, and that's a relatively lengthy ordinance, but amendments are not substantive in nature. we will be providing to the clerk updates to the file.

but exhibits and attachments as part of the d.a. file, specifically those are an exhibit which is the finance plan, in addition to the workforce plan. and i wanted to have the record show that and share that with you, as well. we'll be getting those updates to the clerk. >> and those are attachments that are incorporated by reference? >> that's right. >> ok. >> i see somebody's screen. >> that's my screen, clerk major. i don't see any notes as any amendments. maybe if john can specify which paige anpage and i can navigate. >> john, if you could send those around. >> i can do that right now.

>> and we'll forward it all, as well. >> so while we are doing that, why don't we open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public, including the project sponsor, who would like to testify on items 3, 4 or 5? >> mr. chair, our phone staff is checking on the callers. >> ok. >> mr. chair, there are two callers wishing to speak. >> first speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> hello, good afternoon. i'm cynthia gurman. i'm calling from local 2. is there a way to confirm you can hear me? >> we can hear you.

>> thank you. i'll try to be brief. we are in support of the proposed mixed-use project. and as was mentioned earlier, one of the many uses of this project would be a very creatively use of some of the building elements of the decommission power station for a hotel and we at local 2 signed an agreement with the job at the hotel, specifically a guarantee for a fair and neutral process for the eventual hotel workers we ask for your support. thank you and that will conclude my remarks.

>> thank you. another caller? >> you have one question remaining. >> you have two minutes and you can begin now. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, supervisors. this is corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition, also in support here today. given public comments on this a number of times, but we want to really applaud project sponsor for bringing together a true coalition for this project and having all of the stakeholder meetings and doing the difficult work to build support within the community an in and around the y and move the project forward today. thank you. >> thank you. >> are there any callers? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> seeing no other members of

the public for public comment, public comment is closed. that's me knocking my han on thn the table. so are there questions or comments from committee members? >> chair peskin, through the chair, i think to planning, just curious in you could elaborate -- i was, frankly, impressed by the depths of the affordability here, the depths of the average but was wondering if you could lay out the spread in terms of affordable units, how many at each level? >> this is josh from planning. i think i will have john lao answer that question. thank you. >> i'll take a whack at that. can you hear me? >> go ahead. >> let's see, maybe i didn't

entirely hear the question, but as to the housing plan -- >> i was just asking supervisor peskin as to 72% average on amis, which is the deep affordability for the public's benefit and my own, if you could break that down if you have those figures, as to what percent at each level and how we get to an average of 72% ami. >> yeah. the global response is the city we negotiated with line section 415 and we know there's an importance, a ke connection to e board more broadly. that's where the averages do come from and we can do the math on the fly, but the 780 units, the percentage and i don't have

the specifics. but essentially, both the maximums on price points through sale and rental and we took from section 415 and the overall average was the negotiated point between this city and the developer, of course. >> got it, thank you. >> mr. chair, just to follow up to that, it should be pretty easy to break down what the percentages are in each tier. so if you don't have that information, maybe somebody else on your team does, but it should be pretty straightforward to say what at the different income levels. has that been income levels? >> it's an average that -- >> i understand the average, but i would like to know what the break-down is of that average. does mr. switsky, can you

break that down, if you don't have it john? >> the housing plan as negotiated requires a few things of the developer and then provides flexibility on some related items. so we've required the 30% overall, by phase, i'll add, an additional requirement on site and units in the first two phases and the averages and max price points for 415. but beyond that, currently, the housing plan does provide some flexibility in how those averages are met, again, staying within the points provided by 415. >> so it hasn't been scoped out yet. >> well, beyond them needing to keep wi with the average, we knw

the developers will meet this through the mix of land dedication, we'll refer to it is, 100% bmr projects on site, and that inclusionary and a range of amis. typicalcally those 100% affordable projects are 55% we'll call them to take advantage of the low-housing. so we'll arrive th arranging thd respecting the maximum points at 415. >> and i understand that the project sponsor, mr. landa, is available to address that issue. madam clerk, could you please give mr. landa access to comment, please.

mr. chair, it doesn't look like we have that caller on the line. >> let's circle around to the email you sent us, miss major, that john lao spoke to earlier. it is very difficult for me to see -- because most everything in this file is underlined and i assume the only technical changes are what is double underlined. is that true? is this a complete substitute?

i only find one place that seems to have double underlining. so it's very hard for me to see what changes you have made. i see the insertion of the word active under lane frontages and the only things that seem to be double underlined havin are havo do with languagin lane frontage. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> well, then, supervisor walton, any final words you would like to add? >> thank you, supervisor peskin, and thank you to my colleagues for your thoughtful questions. those are things that, of course, were at the forefront of my mind when we were having

conversations about the community benefits, particularly about affordable housing. one of the major things for me, aside from the 72% average, was just to make sure that we have on-site affordable housing in every phase, which is very important. as you know, we have affordable housing crisis and not too many projects billed in the sale manner and that is something we worked with through the developer, as well as the 100% affordable projects being built for our non-project developers and our partners which is something else we wanted to make sure was a major benefit for communities. so as we think about affordable housing on this project and future projects, making sure we make those opportunities available was at the forefront of our mind, as well, aside from getting over 30% affordable on the project. and i just want to just say that having conversations and making

sure we looked out for the workforce. we heard from local 2 and thank you so much for everything you worked out with the hotel. as you know, we do not have hotels in district 10 and this is something that will be a major benefit for our community as a whole. with that said, i appreciate all of your suggestions and comments and i will make sure i stay on top of this developer like we always do, 24/7. >> thank you swa, supervisor wa, and thank you to the project sponsor, the house of labor and the office of economic workforce development for a project that deals with everything from sea-level rise to community benefits to the preservation of historic resources to hazardous materials and mediation. as i said earlier, the public outreach really has been an involvement, not just outreach, but outreach and involvement has

been superlative. i would like to make a motion to accept a motion for file 4, 2009, and can we do that without objection? >> mr. chair. >> madam clerk, can we do a role call? >> yes. on the accepting of the amendments, a role call, please. >> on the motion to amend as supervisor peskin, supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor safai? >> aye. >> supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> i would like to make a motion to send the file as amended and the other files, items 3 and 5, with positive recommendations to the full board as committee reports with positive recommendation. a role call, please.

>> on the motion as stated, for item number 3 as a committee report, item number 4, recommended as a committee report and item number 5, recommended as a committee 4, preston? >> aye. >> safai. >> aye. >> peskin. aye. >> you have threas three ayes. >> we will look forward to the files forthcoming. with that, can you read items 6 and 7 together? >> by amending the zoning map to change the use classification on certain parcels in the industrial redevelopment project from n1 and ndp and districts to change the height and roll classification of part and

parcels. item number 7 is an ordinance in the industrial use district. (inaudible). >> members that wish to provide comment, should call into the number on the screen and press 1 and then 0 to speak. >> thank you, madam clerk. this is a banner day for district 10. supervisor walton, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin. i was going to make the same statement. the two ordinances being introduced are in response to the expiration of the bayview industrial triangle redevelopment plan which was first adevelopmente adopted in 0 and expire on june 30th of this year. this is a very, very small piece of land area in bayview. the first ordinance would amend the zoning map to rezone the

parcels and the bay view industrial triangle from m1 and m2 to pdr1g and nc3 zoning districts. this will preserve pdr and allow for several uses such as building grocery stores, theaters, recreation spaces in a district that is building over 17,000 units of housing that we have in the pipeline the second ordinance would apply a restricted-use district to the bayview district triangle, prohibiting cannabis retail establishments in the project area. that does not eliminate the continued opportunity for a manufacturing distribution and culcultivation in this area. this is a small piece of land in bayview. i might add that we have several dispensaries and permits within walking distance from this

particular area. the purpose of this proposed rezoning is to stabilize the existing businesses in the bayview industrial triangle and as a result stabilizing the surrounding community. we support the need to add housing and other opportunities in our communities, but this is a small piece of land that would not solve the housing crisis and along the lines and in conjunction with our current bayview plan to make sure that we build housing along third street corridor with commercial on the bottom and housing on top, and this does allow for that in this bayview industrial triangle, as well. the only on position we've had to these changes has come from wealthy landowners that do not reside in this area but would benefit if we were to allow small possibilities of very minimal housing in the bit. again, it is more important for us, in in particular area, to

preserve pdr space, to preserve the jobs that come with the pdr and also allow for the opportunity for thousands more jobs to be in the same area and i might add that this is adjacent to the sewage plant in bayview. therefore, building housing next to a sewage plant we know is not optimal and creates other issues and we're trying to go away from providing this type of nuisance to community and making sure that we are building with optimal for the surrounding community as a whole. i will pass it back to the committee and thank you so much, supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor walton and i believe we have a presentation from planning. is that coming from rhianna tong. is that correct?

>> good afternoon. i will be presenting for these two ordinances. so i'm going to pull up the power-point presentation now.

>> i don't see a power-point presentation. ok, now i've got it. thank you. >> thank you. >> ok, so some backyard on the industrial triangle plan.

the redevelopment plan was adopted in 1980 and it is still in effect today. it is situated in bayview, just east of the southeast treatment plant and west of third street. and the redevelopment plan was developed with community members, with the main objective of preserving and expanding industrial and commercial development while also providing a buffer between the industrial eras from the more commercial and residential areas along third street. the redevelopment plan also specified to relocate existing residential structures from the industrial triangle to nearby residential areas. the redevelopment plan is expiring on june 30th of this year and when that happens, the zoning will revert back to the underlying predominantly m

zoning districts underneath. the m zoning districts are outdated that the city has been and is continuing to phase out. but it will likely happen if it is allowed to variety back to the zoning district and one of the greatest implications is that office and residential uses, which are not currently permitted under the redevelopment plan would now be permitted and this could lead to some consequences such as property speculation, sizing vents, the displacement of businesses and gentrification in and around the industrial triangle. supervisor walton introduced this to address the potential impacts of the zoning -- sorry,

i just want to connect that. (brief pause). >> can everything still hear me? >> i'm sorry. my internet said that it was not connected. i'm going to resume. supervisor walton introduced this ordinance today to address the potential impact of the zoning reverting back to the underlying end zoning and it is to rezone the underlying m1, m2 and nc3 zoning districts to nct3 along third street and pdr 1g, production distribution and repair general, everywhere el in the bayview triangle. i also want to note there has been a minor amendment to the legislation. there was a typo identifying the underlying zoning for one parcel as m1, when it is actually m2.

however, this doesn't change the proposed planning code or the zoning map amendments before you today. >> and miss tong, do we need to fix that in the subject ordinance? >> it should have already been sent to you with the amendment. we'll get that done. >> sorry, please proceed. >> the bayview industrial triangle to nc32 and it's to stabilize the community within the bayview industrial triangle at least until the african-american's arts and culture districts can establish a more neighborhood-wide vision

for the bayview. also, the n ct3 zones encouraging zones along the corridor and everywhere else is preserved land for pdr businesses to continue to operate and grow. housing on much of the third street was recently incorporated into the bayview area commercial district and we are proposing to update the zoning along third street within the bayview industrial triangle to nct3 with the understanding that nctp zoning districts allow for a greater capacity and density of housing comparhousing compared . we're aware of the pipeline in this area for requiring greater

density. obtaininmaintaining pdr in sanfo has been shown to be a positive contribution to the diversity and dpr businesses and manufacturing, in particular middle-class jobs, especially for those who might not have the traditional four-year degree and data also shows that manufacturing jobs actually pay higher than retail and offer more opportunities for career advancements. and at a geographic city-wide scale, you can see here that the bayview industrial triangle in yellow and outlined in red sits in an area that is largely zoned as pdr already and that's the areas shown in blue. and it's important to note that

pdr zoning actually allowed for a variety of uses from cafes to grocery stores to community facilities and to even a few distribution centers. another consideration for the proposal is the existing and proposed heights. it allow for 65 feet development along third street and 40 feet everywhere else. the underlying heights it would revert to allow for 65 feet throughout the bayview industrial triangle with maximum parcels along third street. this ordinance proposes to reclassify those remaining 40-foot maximum parcels to 65 feet so that the entire bayview allows for a maximum of 65 feet consistently. i want to go over briefly the

racial and social equity consideration we took throughout the project. on the right, you'll see a map of the bayview industrial triangle outlined in blue and purple-shaded areas that are communities of concern. and communities of concern are a cross-section of playings ansecs that are disadvantaged and could include minority populations, low-income, seniors, people with disabilities. you'll see that the bayview triangles and overlaps with the communities of concern. and bayview remains one of the few neighborhoods in san francisco where working-class and low-income households can afford to live. so with this context in mind, we developed some equity goals which include the ones listed here to displacement risks and negative health impacts on low

income, people of color and small businesses and increasing affordable housing options and also increasing the opportunity for job access to low-income people of color. by preserving the nt3 zoning, we believe we're helping to stabilize the triangle and surrounding community and making progress to advancing these equity goals. we have been conducting an engagement on this project since june of 2019 and we've been collaborating closely with the economic and workforce development. we have presented a various cac meeting, merchant's group meeting and we've held office hours and hosted our own workshops. we presented at planning commission on february of this year and for that hearing, we

hosted the typical online and newspaper postings and sent out letters via mail to people in the area and people in that vicinity. we sent out notices to the project email list and for today, madam clerk handled the noticing for today's hearing. we've been doing a good bit of outreach on this project. throughout this process, we've heard support and opposition to the proposed update. many of the concerns relate to the conditions of building structures, the occupancy and use of lots in the area, safety and homelessness in the bayview triangle and a general desire for more residential and employment density. and we also heard from community members a request to consider the impacts of any zoning changes on the broader community, especially considering jobs for local use and the sustainability as

existing pdr businesses in the area and around san francisco. in the initial rounds of outreach, one of the major concerns that came up was the large amount of cannabis retail applications going through the bayview and so that resulted in the second ordinance before you today, which is the cannabis restricted use district and this strictly prohibits cannabis retail in the bayview industrial triangle and does not prohibit other cannabis related uses. that concludes my presentation and i will be here to answer my questions. >> thank you, miss tong. and while we go to miss kan, from the controller's office, if you can get the clerk and committee members the amendments

that you spoke to earlier for our review, that would be great. and meanwhile, miss kahn, the floor is yours. >> that was for items 3 through 5 and they'll be submitting an economic report later this week. these items do not have an economic impact. >> my apologies to the controller's office for having them speak on the last item. but sobeit and we can review it when we get it and so, with that, i guess this is just on to miss tong as to the amendments that she previously mentioned. with the typo. touto my knowledge, they're not

before the committee. you mentioned them but i can't vote on them unless you can describe them or i can see them. >> so the amendment is one parcel where the underlying zoning is m2 currently and this is at the northern point of the bayview industrial triangle. this parcel was identified as m1 in the ordinance that was sent to you, but it is actually m2. >> go it. got it. sand i'm looking at legislative version number one, which is the one and only verge o version of. so where is this in section 2,

on page 2? there's a list of blocks and parcel numbers. >> yes. it would be 5235-003. that is listed as m1, when it is actually m2. >> ok, so on page 2, at line 18, parcel block lot number 5235-003, strike m1 and insert m2. is that correct. >> correct. >> thank you for that. are there any comments or questions from members of the committee? seeing none, madam clerk, why don't we go to public comment.

any members of the public who would like to comment on items 6 or 7? >> mr. chair, staff is checking to see if there are any callers in cue. >> mr. chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> ok, with that, public comment is closed. and supervisor walton, any final comments that you would like to make? >> thank you so much, chair peskin. i don't have any comments at this point, but i do appreciate the committee's time and i want to thank miss tong for all of her work on this project with the community and with our office. >> thank you, supervisor walton. are there any comments or questions from community members? seeing none, is there a motion to sen -- i will make a motion o make the one technical amendment on page 2, line 18, changing m1

to m2. on that amendment, a role call, please. >> on the motion, supervisor preston. >> aye. >> safai. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> and then i would like to make a motion to send items 6 as amended with recommendation as a committee report and item 7 as presented with recommendation as a committee report. that would be one motion for the two items. >> on the motion as stated by supervisor preston. >> a earthquakes. ye. >> safai. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> any more business before this committee? >> no further business. >> we are adjourned.

>> right before the game starts, if i'm still on the field, i look around, and i just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical, not knowing what the season

holds holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful, but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013 season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply. i was so nervous, i never lived anywhere outside of fridays know, andfridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second

interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that altogetl r together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players. and then i'll talk to lucille, can you take the shirt gun to the bleachers. i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how

it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team. we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day. renelle is the best. she's all about women in the workforce, she's always in our corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the

giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful learning

>> working with kids, they keep you young. they keep you on your tones -- on your toes. >> teaching them, at the same time, us learning from them, everything is fulfilling. >> ready? go. [♪] >> we really wanted to find a way to support women entrepreneurs in particular in san francisco. it was very important for the mayor, as well as the safety support the dreams that people want to realize, and provide

them with an opportunity to receive funding to support improvements for their business so they could grow and thrive in their neighborhoods and in their industry. >> three, two, one! >> because i am one of the consultants for two nonprofits here for entrepreneurship, i knew about the grand through the renaissance entrepreneur center, and through the small business development center. i thought they were going to be perfect candidate because of their strong values in the community. they really give back to the neighborhood. they are from this neighborhood, and they care about the kids in the community here. >> when molly -- molly first told us about the grant because she works with small businesses. she has been a tremendous help for us here. she brought us to the attention of the grand just because a lot of things here were outdated, and need to be up-to-date and redone totally. >> hands in front.

recite the creed. >> my oldest is jt, he is seven, and my youngest is ryan, he is almost six. it instills discipline and the boys, but they show a lot of care. we think it is great. the moves are fantastic. the women both are great teachers. >> what is the next one? >> my son goes to fd k. he has been attending for about two years now. they also have a summer program, and last summer was our first year participating in it. they took the kids everywhere around san francisco. this year, owner talking about placing them in summer camps, all he wanted to do was spend the entire summer with them. >> he has strong women in his life, so he really appreciates it. i think that carries through and i appreciate the fact that there are more strong women in the world like that.

>> i met d'andrea 25 years ago, and we met through our interest in karate. our professor started on cortland years ago, so we grew up here at this location, we out -- he outgrew the space and he moved ten years later. he decided to reopen this location after he moved. initially, i came back to say, hey, because it might have been 15 years since i even put on a uniform. my business partner was here basically by herself, and the person she was supposed to run the studio with said great, you are here, i started new -- nursing school so you can take over. and she said wait, that is not what i am here for i was by myself before -- for a month before she came through. she was technically here as a secretary, but we insisted, just put on the uniform, and help her teach. i was struggling a little bit. and she has been here.

one thing led to another and now we are co-owners. you think a lot more about safety after having children and i wanted to not live in fear so much, and so i just took advantage of the opportunity, and i found it very powerful to hit something, to get some relief, but also having the knowledge one you might be in a situation of how to take care of yourself. >> the self-defence class is a new thing that we are doing. we started with a group of women last year as a trial run to see how it felt. there's a difference between self-defence and doing a karate class. we didn't want them to do an actual karate class. we wanted to learn the fundamentals of how to defend yourself versus, you know, going through all the forms and techniques that we teaching a karate class and how to break that down. then i was approached by my old high school.

one -- once a semester, the kids get to pick an extra curricular activity to take outside of the school walls. my old biology teacher is now the principle. she approached us into doing a self-defence class. the girls have been really proactive and really sweet. they step out of of the comfort zone, but they have been willing to step out and that hasn't been any pushback. it is really great. >> it is respect. you have to learn it. when we first came in, they knew us as those girls. they didn't know who we were. finally, we came enough for them to realize, okay, they are in the business now. it took a while for us to gain that respect from our peers, our male peers. >> since receiving the grant, it has ignited us even more, and put a fire underneath our butts even more. >> we were doing our summer camp and we are in a movie theatre, and we just finished watching a film and she stepped out to

receive a phone call. she came in and she screamed, hey, we got the grant. and i said what? >> martial arts is a passion for us. it is passion driven. there are days where we are dead tired and the kids come and they have the biggest smiles on their faces and it is contagious. >> we have been operating this program for a little over a year all women entrepreneurs. it is an extraordinary benefit for us. we have had the mayor's office investing in our program so we can continue doing this work. it has been so impactful across a diversity of communities throughout the city. >> we hope that we are making some type of impact in these kids' lives outside of just learning karate. having self-confidence, having discipline, learning to know when it's okay to stand up for yourself versus you just being a bully in school. these are the values we want the kids to take away from this. not just, i learned how to kick

and i learned how to punch. we want the kids to have more values when they walk outside of these doors. [♪]

[♪] >> i am the supervisor of

district one. i am sandra lee fewer. [♪] >> i moved to the richmond district in 1950 mine. i was two years old. i moved from chinatown and we were one of the first asian families to move out here. [♪] >> when my mother decided to buy that house, nobody knew where it was. it seems so far away. for a long time, we were the only chinese family there but we started to see the areas of growth to serve a larger chinese population. the stress was storage of the birthplace of that. my father would have to go to chinatown for dim sum and i remember one day he came home and said, there is one here now. it just started to grow very organically. it is the same thing with the russian population, which is another very large ethnic group in the richmond district.

as russia started to move in, we saw more russian stores. so parts of the richmond is very concentrated with the russian community and immigrant russian community, and also a chinese immigrant community. [♪] >> i think as living here in the richmond, we really appreciate the fact that we are surrounded three natural barriers. they are beautiful barriers. the presidio which gives us so many trails to walk through, ocean beach, for families to just go to the beach and be in the pacific ocean. we also also have a national park service. we boarded the golden gate national recreation area so there is a lot of activity to do in the summer time you see people with bonfires. but really families enjoying the beach and the pacific ocean during the rest of the time of

year. [♪] >> and golden gate park where we have so many of our treasures here. we have the tea garden, the museum and the academy of sciences. not to mention the wonderful playgrounds that we have here in richmond. this is why i say the richmond is a great place for families. the theatre is a treasure in our neighborhood. it has been around for a very long time. is one of our two neighborhood theatres that we have here. i moved here when i was 1959 when i was two years old. we would always go here. i love these neighborhood theatres. it is one of the places that has not only a landmark in the richmond district, but also in san francisco. small theatres showing one or two films. a unique -- they are unique also to the neighborhood and san francisco.

>> where we are today is the heart of the richmond district. with what is unique is that it is also small businesses. there is a different retail here it is mom and pop opening up businesses. and providing for the neighborhood. this is what we love about the streets. the cora door starts on clement street and goes all the way down to the end of clement where you will see small businesses even towards 32nd. at the core of it is right here between here and 20 -- tenth avenue. when we see this variety of stores offered here, it is very unique then of the -- any other part of san francisco. there is traditional irish music which you don't get hardly anywhere in san francisco. some places have this long legacy of serving ice cream and being a hangout for families to have a sunday afternoon ice

cream. and then also, we see grocery stores. and also these restaurants that are just new here, but also thriving. [♪] >> we are seeing restaurants being switched over by hand, new owners, but what we are seeing is a vibrancy of clement street still being recaptured within new businesses that are coming in. that is a really great thing to see. i don't know when i started to shop here, but it was probably a very, very long time ago. i like to cook a lot but i like to cook chinese food. the market is the place i like to come to once a year. once i like about the market as it is very affordable. it has fresh produce and fresh meat. also, seafood. but they also offer a large selection of condiments and sauces and noodles. a variety of rice that they have is tremendous.

i don't thank you can find a variety like that anywhere else. >> hi. i am kevin wong. i am the manager. in 1989 we move from chinatown to richmond district. we have opened for a bit, over 29 years. we carry products from thailand, japan, indonesia, vietnam, singapore and india. we try to keep everything fresh daily. so a customer can get the best out a bit. >> normally during crab season in november, this is the first place i hit. because they have really just really fresh crab. this is something my family really likes for me to make. also, from my traditional chinese food, i love to make a kale soup. they cut it to the size they really want. i am probably here once a week. i'm very familiar with the

aisles and they know everyone who is a cashier -- cashier here i know when people come into a market such as this, it looks like an asian supermarkets, which it is and sometimes it can be intimidating. we don't speak the language and many of the labels are in chinese, you may not know what to buy or if it is the proper ingredients for the recipe are trying to make. i do see a lot of people here with a recipe card or sometimes with a magazine and they are looking for specific items. the staff here is very helpful. i speak very little chinese here myself. thinks that i'm not sure about, i asked the clerk his and i say is this what i need? is this what i should be making? and they actually really helped me. they will bring me to the aisle and say this is battery. they are very knowledgeable. very friendly. i think they are here to serve not only the asian community but to serve all communities in the richmond district and in san francisco. [♪]

>> what is wonderful about living here is that even though our july is a very foggy and overcast, best neighborhood, the sleepy part outside on the west side is so rich with history, but also with all the amenities that are offered. [♪]

>> hi. i am cory with san

francisco and we're doing stay safe and we're going to talk about what shelter in place or safe enough to stay in your home means. we're here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco and joined by carla, the deputy director of spur and one of the persons who pushed this shelter in place and safe enough to stay concept and we want to talk about what it means and why it's important to san francisco. >> as you know the bay area as 63% chance of having a major earthquake and it's serious and going to impact a lot of people and particularly people in san

francisco because we live on a major fault so what does this mean for us? part of what it means is that potentially 25% of san francisco's building stock will be uninhibit tabl and people can't stay in their homes after an earthquake. they may have to go to shelters or leave entirely and we don't want that to happen. >> we want a building stock to encourage them to stay in the homes and encourage them to stay and not relocate to other locations and shelters. >> that's right so that means the housing needs to be safe enough to stay and we have been focused in trying to define what that means and you as a former building official knows better than anybody the code says if

an earthquake happens it won't kill you but doesn't necessarily say that can you stay in your home and we set out to define what that might mean and you know because you built this house we're in now and this shows what it's like to be in a place safe enough to stay. it's not going to be perfect. there maybe cracks in the walls and not have gas or electricity within a while but can you essentially camp out within your unit. what's it going to take to get the housing stock up to this standard? we spent time talking about this and one of the building types we talk about was soft story buildings and the ground floor is vulnerable because there are openings for garages or windows and during the

earthquake we saw in the marina they went right over and those are -- >> very vulnerable buildings. >> very and there are a lot of apartment buildings in san that that are like that. >> and time to. >> >> retrofit the buildings so people can stay in them after the earthquake. >> what do they need? do they need information? do they need incentives? mandates? >> that's a good question. i think it starts with information. people think that new buildings are earthquake proof and don't understand the performance the building will have so we want a transparent of letting people know is my building going to be safe in it after an earthquake? is my building so dangers i should be afraid of being injured? so

developing a ranking system for buildings would be very important and i think for some of the larger apartment buildings that are soft story we need a mandatory program to fix the buildings, not over night and not without financial help or incentive, but a phased program over time that is reasonable so we can fix those buildings, and for the smaller soft story buildings and especially in san francisco and the houses over garages we need information and incentives and coaxing the people along and each of the owners want their house to be safe enough. >> we want the system and not just mandate everybody. >> that's right. >> i hear about people talking about this concept of resiliency. as you're fixing your knowledge you're adding to the city wide resiliency.

>> >> what does that mean? >> that's a great question. what spur has done is look at that in terms of recovery and in new orleans with katrina and lost many of the people, hasn't recovered the building stock. it's not a good situation. i think we can agree and in san we want to rebuild well and quickly after a major disaster so we have defined what that means for our life lines. how do we need the gasolines to perform and water perform after an earthquake and the building stock as well, so we have the goal of 95% of our homes to be ready for shelter in place after a major earthquake, and that way people can stay within the city. we don't lose our work force. we don't lose the people that make san francisco so special. we keep everybody here and that

allow us to recover our economy, and everything because it's so interdependent. >> so that is a difficult goal but i think we can achieve it over the long time so thank you very much for hosting us and hosting this great exhibit, and hank you very much for joining i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today. >> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely.

>> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do this. it's important to understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park.

>> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is nice. no rain. beautiful san francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center so come

my name is doctor ellen moffett, i am an assistant medical examiner for the city and county of san francisco. i perform autopsy, review medical records and write reports. also integrate other sorts of testing data to determine cause and manner of death.

i have been here at this facility since i moved here in november, and previous to that at the old facility. i was worried when we moved here that because this building is so much larger that i wouldn't see people every day. i would miss my personal interactions with the other employees, but that hasn't been the case. this building is very nice. we have lovely autopsy tables and i do get to go upstairs and down stairs several times a day to see everyone else i work with. we have a bond like any other group of employees that work for a specific agency in san francisco. we work closely on each case to determine the best cause of death, and we also interact with family members of the diseased. that brings us closer together also. >> i am an investigator two at the office of the chief until

examiner in san francisco. as an investigator here i investigate all manners of death that come through our jurisdiction. i go to the field interview police officers, detectives, family members, physicians, anyone who might be involved with the death. additionally i take any property with the deceased individual and take care and custody of that. i maintain the chain and custody for court purposes if that becomes an issue later and notify next of kin and make any additional follow up phone callsness with that particular death. i am dealing with people at the worst possible time in their lives delivering the worst news they could get. i work with the family to help them through the grieving process. >> i am ricky moore, a clerk at the san francisco medical examiner's office. i assist the pathology and

toxicology and investigative team around work close with the families, loved ones and funeral establishment. >> i started at the old facility. the building was old, vintage. we had issues with plumbing and things like that. i had a tiny desk. i feet very happy to be here in the new digs where i actually have room to do my work. >> i am sue pairing, the toxicologist supervisor. we test for alcohol, drugs and poisons and biological substances. i oversee all of the lab operations. the forensic operation here we perform the toxicology testing for the human performance and the case in the city of san francisco. we collect evidence at the scene. a woman was killed after a

robbery homicide, and the dna collected from the zip ties she was bound with ended up being a cold hit to the suspect. that was the only investigative link collecting the scene to the suspect. it is nice to get the feedback. we do a lot of work and you don't hear the result. once in a while you heard it had an impact on somebody. you can bring justice to what happened. we are able to take what we due to the next level. many of our counterparts in other states, cities or countries don't have the resources and don't have the beautiful building and the equipmentness to really advance what we are doing. >> sometimes we go to court. whoever is on call may be called out of the office to go to various portions of the city to

investigate suspicious deaths. we do whatever we can to get our job done. >> when we think that a case has a natural cause of death and it turns out to be another natural cause of death. unexpected findings are fun. >> i have a prior background in law enforcement. i was a police officer for 8 years. i handled homicides and suicides. i had been around death investigation type scenes. as a police officer we only handled minimal components then it was turned over to the coroner or the detective division. i am intrigued with those types of calls. i wondered why someone died. i have an extremely supportive family. older children say, mom, how was your day. i can give minor details and i

have an amazing spouse always willing to listen to any and all details of my day. without that it would be really hard to deal with the negative components of this job. >> being i am a native of san francisco and grew up in the community. i come across that a lot where i may know a loved one coming from the back way or a loved one seeking answers for their deceased. there are a lot of cases where i may feel affected by it. if from is a child involved or things like that. i try to not bring it home and not let it affect me. when i tell people i work at the medical examiners office. whawhat do you do? the autopsy? i deal with the a with the enou- with the administrative and the

families. >> most of the time work here is very enjoyable. >> after i started working with dead people, i had just gotten married and one night i woke up in a cold sweat. i thought there was somebody dead? my bed. i rolled over and poked the body. sure enough, it was my husband who grumbled and went back to sleep. this job does have lingering effects. in terms of why did you want to go into this? i loved science growing up but i didn't want to be a doctor and didn't want to be a pharmacist. the more i learned about forensics how interested i was of the perfect combination between applied science and criminal justice. if you are interested in finding out the facts and truth seeking to find out what happened, anybody interested in that has a

place in this field. >> being a woman we just need to go for it and don't let anyone fail you, you can't be. >> with regard to this position in comparison to crime dramas out there, i would say there might be some minor correlations. let's face it, we aren't hollywood, we are real world. yes we collect evidence. we want to preserve that. we are not scanning fingerprints in the field like a hollywood television show. >> families say thank you for what you do, for me that is extremely fulfilling. somebody has to do my job. if i can make a situation that is really negative for someone more positive, then i feel like i am doing the right thing for the city of san francisco.

>> good morning, the meeting will come to order. this is the april 15th, 2020, regular budget and finance committee meeting. at this time i will also be calling to reschedule the budget propriations committee. and i am sandra lee fewer and i'm joined by supervisor walton and super